Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> regarding the new root servers which respond to queries over IPv6 -
> one thing you didn't quite mention, but I suspect is necessary, is
> that their IPv6 addresses be stable. that is, that once root
> servers are established at these addresses and are advertised,
> that there will continue to be authoritative root servers at
> those addresses for the forseeable future.
>
> this has implications for the roots; but perhaps also, for their
> ISPs and for address assignment in general. regardless of what
> assumptions we make about IPv6 renumbering elsewhere, we don't
> want to renumber the root servers very often.
It has occurred to me for some time that we should be willing to
supply host routes for the root servers in the default free
zone. We're only talking about a tiny number of servers, and it is the
only service for which this is necessary. Yes, it would end up adding
a dozen extra routes to the tables, but I think that in general it is
probably the right way to go.
Anyone else have thoughts on that notion?
Perry
--
Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Quality NetBSD CDs, Support & Service. http://www.wasabisystems.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The IPv6 Users Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe users" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
